The Issue The issue is whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner based on his race, national origin, age, sex, and/or disability in violation of section 760.10, Florida Statutes.1
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: PARTIES The Division is an employer as that term is defined in section 760.02(7). Mr. Gonzalez is a white Cuban male older than 40 years old. Out of respect for Mr. Gonzalez’s privacy, the Division stipulated that Mr. Gonzalez suffers from a disability or handicap without requiring him to disclose its nature at the hearing. Mr. Gonzalez has worked for the Division in Tallahassee since April 3, 2015. Mr. Gonzalez was initially hired in an Other Personal Services (“OPS”) capacity as an Operations Analyst I. On June 3, 2016, Mr. Gonzalez received a Career Service appointment to the same position, Operations Analyst I, which remains his position at the Division. Mr. Gonzalez is a switchboard operator. OCTOBER 24, 2019, AND ITS AFTERMATH While Mr. Gonzalez’s complaint broadened over time, the triggering event to his conflict with the Division was a meeting with his immediate supervisor, Operations Service Manager Kimberly Jackson, and several coworkers on the morning of October 24, 2019. Early on the morning of October 24, 2019, Mr. Gonzalez phoned Ms. Jackson to ask if he could take some time off work that morning. Mr. Gonzalez explained that his daughter was having her sick dog put to sleep and that he wanted to be with her because the situation was very emotional. During this conversation, Ms. Jackson told Mr. Gonzalez that she was calling a meeting with all of the switchboard operators later that morning. She left it up to Mr. Gonzalez whether he wanted to miss the meeting. Mr. Gonzalez testified that Ms. Jackson’s manner of giving him the option not to attend the meeting was threatening. He testified that she said, “Well, if you want to play it that way.” He took her message to be that he had better not miss the meeting. Mr. Gonzalez came into work and attended the meeting. Ms. Jackson denied that she said “if you want to play it that way” or anything of the sort. She testified that she told Mr. Gonzalez that he could go be with his daughter. Ms. Jackson was aware that another of her subordinates would also be absent that morning. She planned to discuss the meeting topics with that employee later. She testified that it would not have been a problem to include Mr. Gonzalez in that discussion. At 7:41 a.m. on October 24, 2019, Ms. Jackson sent out a memorandum informing her subordinates of the meeting to be held at 9:00 a.m. The memorandum went out after Ms. Jackson and Mr. Gonzalez spoke on the phone. The timing led Mr. Gonzalez to allege that Ms. Jackson had called the meeting in response to his request for leave, apparently from some malicious desire to prevent him from being with his daughter. Ms. Jackson testified that she had planned to call the meeting before she spoke to Mr. Gonzalez on the phone. The purpose of the meeting was to remind staff of certain office procedures, such as the importance of arriving on time so that the switchboard could begin accepting calls promptly at 8:00 a.m., and the prohibition on excessive personal cell phone use. Ms. Jackson stated that she had no reason for wanting to keep Mr. Gonzalez away from his family. Mr. Gonzalez testified that the meeting was short, no more than five minutes. He sat quietly and listened to Ms. Jackson. When she was finished, he raised his hand to ask a question. Ms. Jackson continually interrupted, making it impossible for him to ask his question. Mr. Gonzalez felt embarrassed and demeaned in front of his fellow employees, but denied ever responding aggressively or in an unprofessional manner. Ms. Jackson gave a vague answer to his question. When he attempted to ask a second question, Ms. Jackson shut down the meeting. Ms. Jackson’s version of the meeting was that Mr. Gonzalez was very unprofessional. He was rude, aggressive, and interruptive. He did not wait for Ms. Jackson to finish before he began peppering her with questions. Mr. Gonzalez constantly asked her to point to agency rules or written policies to support the directives she was giving. Ms. Jackson tried to explain that these were just office procedures that any supervisor can establish, but Mr. Gonzalez would not be satisfied. At one point, he pointed his finger at Ms. Jackson and said, “Ma’am, I listened to you. Now you’re going to listen to me.” Ms. Jackson’s version of events at the meeting is the more credible. Ms. Jackson testified that two newly hired employees were present and she was concerned they would come away with the impression that this was how she conducted meetings. Ms. Jackson testified that Mr. Gonzalez’s behavior at the meeting prompted her to contact her direct superior, Program Administrator Sarah Evans, to discuss the matter. Ms. Evans decided to informally investigate what happened at the meeting. First, Ms. Evans attempted to phone Mr. Gonzalez to get his version. When she was unable to reach him by phone, Ms. Evans sent an email to Mr. Gonzalez asking him to call her. Ms. Evans then proceeded to contact the other employees who were at the meeting. One employee, Tania Membreno, told Ms. Evans that she preferred not to get involved in the matter. Two other employees, Adam Wiman and Stacey Macon, confirmed Ms. Jackson’s version of events. Mr. Wiman told Ms. Evans that the meeting had been “awkward” and that Mr. Gonzalez was rude to Ms. Jackson, continually interrupting her. Mr. Macon told Ms. Evans that he felt uncomfortable during the meeting because Mr. Gonzalez was unprofessional and rude to Ms. Jackson. When Ms. Evans eventually reached Mr. Gonzalez by phone, he refused to give her any information about the meeting without a union representative and Robin Rega, a Department of Health Labor Relations Consultant, present. Mr. Gonzalez hung up on Ms. Evans. Ms. Evans and Ms. Jackson prepared a “supervisor counseling memorandum” to be presented to Mr. Gonzalez because of his behavior at the October 24, 2019, meeting. On October 31, 2019, Ms. Evans and Ms. Jackson met with Mr. Gonzalez and explained that they were providing him with the memorandum as a reminder to remain professional and courteous in the office. Mr. Gonzalez reacted by stating that he was never unprofessional. He attempted to veer the conversation off onto a discussion of another employee whom he believed was unprofessional. Mr. Gonzalez refused to sign the memorandum, though Ms. Evans explained that his signature would only indicate that he had received the document, not that he agreed with its contents. Mr. Gonzalez did agree to take a copy of the memorandum before he left the meeting. The supervisor counseling memorandum was not made part of Mr. Gonzalez’s employment record and did not constitute adverse employment action or disciplinary action against Mr. Gonzalez. It was merely a reminder to Mr. Gonzalez of the behavior and deportment expected of Division employees. The Department of Health’s personnel policy defines “counseling” as “[a] discussion between a supervisor and an employee that identifies a problem, clarifies expectations and consequences, and provides direction for the resolution of the problem.” The Department of Health’s personnel policy does not treat counseling as disciplinary action. Meetings held by supervisors to counsel employees are not considered investigatory interviews, and employees covered by a collective bargaining agreement do not have the right to union representation during counseling meetings. THE GRIEVANCE AND EMPLOYMENT COMPLAINT OF DISCRIMINATION The supervisor counseling memorandum gave Mr. Gonzalez 60 days to respond in writing, if he wished. Mr. Gonzalez decided to file a formal Career Service employee grievance pursuant to section 110.227(4), Florida Statutes. On November 4, 2019, Mr. Gonzalez obtained a grievance form and a copy of the Department of Health’s employee grievance policy from Ms. Rega. On November 12, 2019, Mr. Gonzalez forwarded his completed Career Service employee grievance form, with attached exhibits, to Ms. Jackson via email, with copies to Ms. Evans, Ms. Rega, Mr. Gonzalez’s union representative, and a representative of the FCHR. On its face, Mr. Gonzalez’s grievance complained of “discrimination of age, gender, ethnic [sic].” The six-page narrative attached to the grievance gave Mr. Gonzalez’s version of the events of October 24, 2019, and the subsequent supervisor counseling memorandum. The narrative also alleged that Ms. Jackson had arranged the furniture in Mr. Gonzalez’s office in a way that aggravated his claustrophobia, then refused to allow him to move the furniture. He alleged that Ms. Jackson would not approve his request to take annual leave over the Christmas holidays. He alleged that Ms. Jackson had wrongly asserted that she possessed the authority to deny Mr. Gonzalez’s Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) leave requests. He alleged that the Division had unfairly cut his pay when he moved from OPS to Career Service. Finally, Mr. Gonzalez alleged that persons unknown were sabotaging his efforts to obtain other jobs within the Department of Health. Specifically, he believed he was being denied a veteran’s preference in his applications for other positions in the agency.2 Mr. Gonzalez’s narrative did not explain how any of the actions of which he complained constituted age, gender, or ethnic discrimination, aside from the fact that Kimberly Jackson is a black female. The only solution requested by Mr. Gonzalez in his grievance was for individuals in the Division to “Quit harassment, stalking, and scrutiny; Treatment like other employees; Get my original starting pay, and 10% for violating veterans preference.” The Department of Health’s grievance policy and section 110.227(4) specifically exclude discrimination claims from the Career Service grievance process. Discrimination claims are routed to the agency’s Equal Opportunity Office. On that jurisdictional basis, Ms. Jackson denied the grievance on November 18, 2019. Brenshinita McGee, Manager of the Department of Health’s Equal Opportunity Office, testified that her office investigated the allegations contained in Mr. Gonzalez’s grievance. However, before an investigative memorandum could be completed, Mr. Gonzalez filed an Employment Complaint of Discrimination with the FCHR. This action changed the Equal 2 Mr. Gonzalez’s narrative also included allegations that a Division employee was stalking him and that he was under intense surveillance by his superiors following the issuance of the supervisor guidance memorandum. Mr. Gonzalez presented no testimony or other evidence regarding these allegations, which are therefore found to have been abandoned. Opportunity Office’s role from investigating an internal complaint to responding on behalf of the Department of Health to an external complaint. On February 21, 2020, Mr. Gonzalez filed his Employment Complaint of Discrimination with the FCHR, attaching a copy of his grievance and all supporting information that had previously been sent to Ms. Jackson. On February 28, 2020, Ms. McGee sent an email to Kendricka Howard, an Investigation Manager with the FCHR, requesting clarification as to the issues associated with Mr. Gonzalez’s case. Ms. Howard responded: “The issues associated with this case are: Discipline, Failure to Accommodate, Failure to Hire, Failure to Promote, Terms/Conditions and Wages.” DISCIPLINE The only record evidence of anything resembling a disciplinary action against Mr. Gonzalez was the supervisor counseling memorandum. As found above, a supervisor counseling memorandum is not disciplinary action. There is no evidence that Mr. Gonzalez has ever been disciplined by the Division. Mr. Gonzalez suffered no adverse employment action as a result of the supervisor counseling memorandum or the meeting with his supervisors on October 31, 2019. FAILURE TO ACCOMMODATE The Division stipulated that Mr. Gonzalez suffers from a disability or handicap. However, no evidence was presented to show that Mr. Gonzalez ever requested an accommodation from the Department of Health’s Equal Opportunity Office or that the Department of Health failed to accommodate him. The closest thing to an accommodation claim was Mr. Gonzalez’s allegation that Ms. Jackson would not allow him to move the furniture in his office to alleviate his claustrophobia. At the hearing, Ms. Jackson reasonably explained that all Division office employees are prohibited from moving their own furniture for reasons of personal safety. If employees wish to move their furniture, they must submit a request to the maintenance department. Ms. Jackson had no objection to Mr. Gonzalez reordering the furniture in his office. FAILURE TO HIRE OR PROMOTE Mr. Gonzalez alleges that he was denied the veteran’s preference mandated by section 295.07, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 55A-7, when applying for other positions within the Department of Health. In support of this claim, Mr. Gonzalez referenced applying for three positions between February and March 2018.3 In February 2018, Mr. Gonzalez applied for a Regulatory Specialist II position in the Department of Health’s Office of Medical Marijuana Use. At the hearing, it was established that the Office of Medical Marijuana Use is separate and distinct from the Division. No one in the Division had any decision making authority or advisory role as to who was chosen for the Office of Medical Marijuana Use position. There was no evidence that the Division committed any adverse employment action or discriminated against Mr. Gonzalez with respect to his application for the Office of Medical Marijuana Use position. In March 2018, Mr. Gonzalez applied for a Medical Disability Examiner position with the Division. In accordance with statutory and rule requirements, Mr. Gonzalez received an additional five points as a veteran’s preference, but failed to score well enough on the work sample portion of the interview to warrant an in-person interview. There was no evidence that the Division committed any adverse employment action or discriminated against 3 In all of these applications, Mr. Gonzalez declined to provide information as to his gender, race, ethnicity, or age. As to these job applications, Mr. Gonzalez did not claim unfair treatment on any basis other than the veteran’s preference. Mr. Gonzalez with respect to his application for the Medical Disability Examiner position. In March 2018, Mr. Gonzalez applied for a Management Review Specialist position with the Division. The notice for the position specifically stated: “Current employment with the Division of Disability Determinations processing federal Social Security claims is required.” At all times during his employment with the Department of Health, Mr. Gonzalez has been a switchboard operator for the Division. He did not meet the minimum qualifications for the Management Review Specialist position. There was no evidence that the Division committed any adverse employment action or discriminated against Mr. Gonzalez with respect to his application for the Management Review Specialist Position. TERMS, CONDITIONS, AND WAGES Mr. Gonzalez’s reduction in salary after his voluntary transition from OPS to Career Service was neither adverse employment action nor discriminatory. This reduction in salary was consistent with the Division’s practice for all employees. The Director of the Division, Brian Garber, testified that OPS switchboard operators are paid slightly more than Career Service operators to compensate for the facts that OPS employees do not get paid time off for holidays, do not accrue sick leave or annual leave, and do not participate in the State of Florida’s retirement system. When an OPS operator transitions into Career Service, his or her salary is reduced, but other benefits are obtained that offset the salary reduction. Mr. Gonzalez did not dispute that he received benefits when he transferred from OPS to Career Service, including paid leave, paid holidays, discounted insurance options, and retirement benefits. Mr. Garber testified that he specifically requested that Mr. Gonzalez be paid more than other starting switchboard operators because he speaks Spanish. There was no evidence that the Division committed any adverse employment action or discriminated against Mr. Gonzalez with respect to his wages as a Career Service employee. Mr. Gonzalez claimed that a vacation request was not approved “until [he] had to take measures to HR.” On October 16, 2019, Mr. Gonzalez submitted a request for annual leave the week of Christmas 2019. Ms. Jackson approved his request on November 18, 2019, six days after Mr. Gonzalez filed his complaint with the FCHR. At the hearing, Ms. Jackson explained the delay in approving Mr. Gonzalez’s leave. As the Christmas and New Year’s holidays approach, Ms. Jackson asks all of her subordinates to submit their leave requests by a date certain so that she can arrange for all positions to be covered during that period. She did not approve Mr. Gonzalez’s request until all of her other subordinates had submitted their requests. Ms. Jackson also noted that approval of Mr. Gonzalez’s particular request was contingent upon his accumulating sufficient leave hours before the requested vacation time arrived. In any event, there was no evidence that Mr. Gonzalez was treated disparately or discriminatorily as to his leave requests. The record established that Ms. Jackson has approved every request Mr. Gonzalez has made to use annual leave. Mr. Gonzalez claimed disparate and discriminatory treatment in how his workload is determined, alleging that he was given much more work than the other switchboard operators. The credible evidence reflected that Mr. Gonzalez’s workload is distributed evenly with other switchboard operators. Mr. Gonzalez’s claim about Ms. Jackson’s interfering with his right to take FMLA leave was premised on nothing more than a misunderstanding. On August 21, 2019, at 2:53 p.m., Mr. Gonzalez sent an email to Ms. Jackson stating that he would be absent from work on September 6, 2019, due to a medical procedure. The text of the email did not mention FMLA, though the subject line did read, “Medical Procedure/FMLA.” Ms. Jackson overlooked the subject line and responded to the text, inquiring whether Mr. Gonzalez had submitted a leave request for the date in question. When Mr. Gonzalez responded in the negative, Ms. Jackson nonetheless approved the leave, still not realizing it was FMLA leave and her approval was not required. The approval was given at 3:08 p.m., on August 21, 2019, 15 minutes after Mr. Gonzalez sent his initial email. At the hearing, Ms. Jackson acknowledged her error. Mr. Gonzalez made no showing that he suffered any actual harm from Ms. Jackson’s mistake. Mr. Gonzalez alleged that he has been “given a difficult time when [he tries] to make up [his] time from doctor’s appointments.” This allegation was not supported by record evidence. Ms. Jackson employs a request and approval process for all employees who wish to “adjust their time,” i.e., make modifications from the normal 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. schedule. The record evidence shows instances in which Mr. Gonzalez properly requested to adjust his time and other instances in which he made time adjustments without prior approval from Ms. Jackson. In neither situation was Mr. Gonzalez “given a difficult time” by Ms. Jackson. To the contrary, the evidence indicates great forbearance by Ms. Jackson in allowing Mr. Gonzalez to adjust his time for doctor’s appointments. Ms. Jackson has no control over the availability of overtime hours. When she is notified by her superiors that overtime is available in her section, Ms. Jackson makes it available equally to all of her subordinate employees. The record indicates that Mr. Gonzalez has both accepted and declined the offers of overtime. There was no evidence that Mr. Gonzalez has ever been denied an opportunity to utilize overtime when it was available. COMPARATOR EMPLOYEES Mr. Gonzalez has not shown that any other employee outside of the protected classes claimed in his FCHR complaint have been treated differently than he has. Mr. Gonzalez actually highlighted the fact that he and several of his OPS counterparts were treated equally when they moved over to Career Service as a group in 2016. The evidence supports a finding that the policies and procedures implemented and reinforced by Ms. Jackson and her supervisors in the Division apply equally to all employees. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS In sum, Mr. Gonzalez’s complaints bespeak a general dissatisfaction with the decisions of his supervisors, in particular his immediate superior, Ms. Jackson. However, disagreements with those in authority do not support claims of discrimination, particularly where the employee cannot establish that he or she has suffered any adverse effects from the disputed decisions. Mr. Gonzalez failed to establish that he was subjected to any adverse employment action by the Division. Mr. Gonzalez offered no evidence that he was treated differently than any other similarly situated employee.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order finding that the Department of Health, Division of Disability Determinations did not commit any unlawful employment practices and dismissing the Petition for Relief filed in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of February, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of February, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Room 110 4075 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 Dee Dee McGee, EO Manager Department of Health Office of the General Counsel 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Rodolfo Gonzalez 2000 Lohman Court Tallahassee, Florida 32311 Louise Wilhite-St Laurent, General Counsel Department of Health Bin A-02 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Virginia Edwards, Esquire Department of Health Prosecution Services Unit Bin A-02 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations Room 110 4075 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, City of Ocala (“the City”), retaliated against Petitioner, Nyleah Jackson (“Petitioner” or “Ms. Jackson”), for exercising her right to file a claim of employment discrimination against the City pursuant to section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2018).1/
Findings Of Fact The City is an employer as that term is defined in section 760.02(7). Petitioner, an African American female, was hired by the City as an Administrative Specialist II on May 2, 2016. She worked in that job position until her resignation on February 7, 2018. Petitioner initially worked in the City’s Electric Utility Department and then transferred to the Public Works Department. Her duties were primarily secretarial, clerical, and administrative. Petitioner testified that when she started in Public Works, her direct supervisor was Tom Casey, but that at some point Judy Wade appeared to take over at least some of those supervisory duties. In her telling, Petitioner never recognized Ms. Wade as her direct supervisor except as to specific tasks delegated by Mr. Casey. Ms. Wade was the Fiscal Administrator for Public Works. She testified that Tom Casey and Darren Park are her superiors in Public Works. Ms. Wade credibly testified that she was Petitioner’s direct supervisor for the entire time that Petitioner worked in Public Works. Ms. Wade’s supervisory duties included monitoring Petitioner’s attendance at work and her leave requests. Petitioner’s testimony that she was unaware Ms. Wade was her direct supervisor for all purposes is not credited. On or about August 25, 2017, Petitioner presented a formal grievance to the City alleging that she had been discriminated against because of her race when she was not hired for a vacant Administrative Assistant III position. On or about August 31, 2017, Human Resources and Risk Management Director Jared Sorensen spoke with Petitioner and asked her to clarify whether she was pursuing a formal grievance under the City’s Collective Bargaining Agreement (“CBA”) with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers or under the City’s Employee Handbook. Petitioner responded that she wished to file her grievance under the CBA. On September 13, 2017, Petitioner sent an email to Mr. Sorensen, with copies to Mr. Casey and Mr. Park. The email stated as follows, in relevant part: Both the City of Ocala Employee Handbook and Collective Bargaining Agreement allows [sic] a response in writing within 10 business days of receipt of the grievance. I spoke with Tom Casey and Darren Park as well as sent my grievance, via interoffice to Human Resources, on August 25, 2017. From my meeting, I gathered that classification matters, discriminatory/biased hiring decisions and equal pay issues is [sic] in the Human Resource jurisdiction. I received a call last week from Jared stating that the target response date was September 8th, 2017 but I would have a definitive response by September 11th, 2017. I plan to hold my employer/HR accountable and liable to this deadline as promised. It is now September 13th with no response. The email concluded with a demand for a response regarding Petitioner’s remedies no later than September 14, 2017. The record evidence indicates that the City’s response was delayed for two reasons. First, Petitioner had indicated that she wished to pursue her grievance through the CBA, and Mr. Sorensen’s conversations with Petitioner’s union representative led him to believe that Petitioner’s grievance was going to be refiled to clearly establish a starting date for the CBA process. Second, Hurricane Irma had just passed through the state, causing significant damage in Marion County and delaying the City’s ability to respond to non-emergency matters such as Petitioner’s grievance. Of greater significance to this retaliation case, Petitioner’s direct supervisor, Ms. Wade, was not copied on any of the correspondence regarding Petitioner’s discrimination claim or her grievance. The only way Ms. Wade would have known of these matters was through word-of-mouth in the office. Ms. Wade credibly testified that she was unaware of any of these matters at the time they were occurring. Petitioner believed that Ms. Wade knew of her complaints, but provided no direct evidence of Ms. Wade’s knowledge. One week after her email to Mr. Sorensen, on September 20, 2017, Petitioner interviewed for an open position in the City’s Fleet Department. The Fleet Department is separate from Public Works and is located in a different building. Ms. Wade testified that Petitioner did not inform her that she would be absent from the Public Works office or that she would be interviewing for a position in the Fleet Department. Ms. Wade stated that she checked Petitioner’s office and saw that she was not present. Ms. Wade asked a co- worker about Petitioner’s location and was informed that Petitioner was out at a job interview. Petitioner testified that she told Ms. Wade that she would be out of the office. She did not tell Ms. Wade why she was going out. Petitioner testified that she believed Ms. Wade was not her supervisor and had no reason to know that she was going out on a job interview. Petitioner stated that she told Mr. Casey why she would be out of the office. Petitioner did not call Mr. Casey as a witness to corroborate her version of events. As indicated above, the undersigned does not credit Petitioner’s assertion that she did not believe Ms. Wade was her direct supervisor. When Petitioner returned to the office, Ms. Wade informed her that she was required to use paid time off (“PTO”) for personal business such as job interviews. Ms. Wade sent a request through “Kronos,” the City’s payroll software system, to dock Petitioner for 30 minutes of PTO for the time she was not in the office. Within a few days of making the Kronos request, Ms. Wade discussed the matter with Mr. Sorensen, who told her that City policy provided that employees could interview for other open positions within the City without using any PTO. The time used for such internal interviews was to be treated as regular work time. Evidence produced at the hearing indicated that Petitioner had gone out on such internal interviews previously and not been charged with PTO. Ms. Wade, having learned that she was mistaken regarding City policy, took steps to restore Petitioner’s PTO. On September 26, 2017, Ms. Wade submitted a payroll correction to adjust Petitioner’s pay to her full regular hourly rate. On October 3, 2017, Ms. Wade informed Petitioner of her mistake and that she had reversed the docking of Petitioner’s PTO. Petitioner contended that Ms. Wade’s docking of her pay was in retaliation for her complaint of discrimination and filing of a grievance. Petitioner stated that Ms. Wade’s reversal of the PTO decision was due solely to the fact that Petitioner contacted her union representative about the matter. Petitioner conceded that the only evidence connecting her discrimination complaint to Ms. Wade’s action on September 20, 2017, was their proximity in time. Ms. Wade credibly testified that she did not know about Petitioner’s discrimination complaint on September 20, 2017, and that no one working for the City ever instructed her to take any adverse action against Petitioner. On October 2, 2017, the FCHR received Petitioner’s initial Employment Complaint of Discrimination. The FCHR sent a Notice of Filing of Complaint of Discrimination to the City. The Notice was dated October 3, 2017, but was not received by the City until October 6, 2017. Ms. Wade testified that she was unaware of any potential claim of discrimination by Petitioner prior to October 6, 2017. Petitioner claimed that Ms. Wade was aware of Petitioner’s intention to file the discrimination complaint when Ms. Wade originally docked Petitioner’s PTO in September 2017. To support this claim, Petitioner first testified that one of the emails she sent regarding her potential discrimination complaint was copied to Ms. Wade. When the actual emails were produced by the City and showed that Ms. Wade was not copied on any of them, Petitioner testified that she had told Ms. Wade of her discrimination complaint at a meeting that included Ms. Wade and Mr. Park. Ms. Wade credibly testified that she had no memory of discussing the discrimination complaint with Petitioner at a meeting. Petitioner did not produce Mr. Park as a witness to corroborate her testimony regarding a meeting. Ms. Wade’s testimony is credited on this point. Petitioner failed to demonstrate that Ms. Wade’s actions on September 20, 2017, were in retaliation for Petitioner’s discrimination complaint. On November 20, 2017, the City hired Erica Wilson as the new Administrative Specialist III to work in Public Works. She assumed the duties of the previous Administrative Specialist III, Melinda Day, who had retired. Petitioner and Ms. Day had worked cooperatively in preparing payroll reports for Public Works. Petitioner would summarize the payroll cards for the stormwater division, and Ms. Day would summarize the payroll cards for the streets and traffic divisions. Once the summaries were completed, either Petitioner or Ms. Day would transmit them by email to the Payroll Department. Petitioner and Ms. Day alternated the task of sending the email to Payroll, with each employee transmitting the information every other week. After Ms. Day retired, Public Works was shorthanded for a time. During this period, Petitioner began summarizing all of the payroll cards for the stormwater, streets, and traffic divisions, and transmitting all of that information to Payroll on a weekly basis. After Ms. Wilson was hired at Public Works, Petitioner continued to perform her new duties while Ms. Wilson came up to speed on her new job. In January 2018, Ms. Wade convened a meeting with Petitioner and Ms. Wilson to discuss the transition for Ms. Wilson to take over the payroll duties formerly performed by Ms. Day. At the conclusion of the meeting, Ms. Wade announced that Ms. Wilson would be in charge of sending all the emails to Payroll and Petitioner would continue summarizing all of the pay cards for all three divisions of Public Works.2/ In other words, the work would be divided more or less as it was before Ms. Day retired. At the meeting with Ms. Wade and Ms. Wilson, Petitioner voiced no dispute or concerns with the division of duties ordered by Ms. Wade. Neither Ms. Wade nor Ms. Wilson recalled Petitioner’s being upset by or objecting to the plan outlined by Ms. Wade. Petitioner herself conceded that she said nothing to indicate her disagreement with the re-assignment. Petitioner contends that Ms. Wade’s decision to take some of Ms. Day’s former duties from her and assign them to Ms. Day’s successor was a retaliatory reduction of her job duties. Again, Petitioner’s only evidentiary support for her contention is that the alleged retaliatory action occurred after she made her discrimination complaint with the FCHR. Ms. Wilson testified that she considered the entire matter of payroll duties to be a minor part of her job. Ms. Wade testified that her only intention in redistributing duties was to restore the status quo ante from before Ms. Day retired. Also in January 2018, another event caused Petitioner to believe that Ms. Wade was retaliating against her. Petitioner alleged that Ms. Wade further reduced her job duties by forbidding her to contact vendors used by the City or to contact City employee John Long, who was the City’s Vendor Relations Manager. The specific issue concerned Petitioner’s contacts with UniFirst, the vendor who laundered uniforms for every department of the City. Petitioner’s routine job duties included taking delivery of uniforms for Public Works employees from UniFirst drivers. She discussed with those drivers any issues regarding the number of uniforms delivered, the condition of the uniforms, and the amount of the invoice. Petitioner had no responsibility for dealing with UniFirst’s management on behalf of the City as a whole. In April 2017, Petitioner inserted herself into a quality of service dispute with UniFirst. Uniform shirts were coming back from UniFirst in a soiled and threadbare condition. At first, Petitioner followed protocol and addressed her complaints to Mr. Long, who conveyed them to Jeff Peterson, UniFirst’s district service manager. However, after some back- and-forth between Mr. Long and Mr. Peterson, Petitioner elected to send an email of her own to Mr. Peterson. Ms. Wade considered this action unprofessional and counseled Petitioner about it. Ms. Wade did not believe further discipline was necessary because the situation was unlikely to recur. However, in January 2018, a similar quality control issue arose with UniFirst. Mr. Long and Petitioner exchanged emails that indicated Mr. Long believed Petitioner was the City’s point person regarding UniFirst, based on her handling of the previous issue in 2017. However, Ms. Wade directed Petitioner not to contact UniFirst management directly because the City employed Mr. Long to handle citywide vendor relations. Petitioner alleged that Ms. Wade had instructed her to have no contact with anyone from UniFirst, and that this instruction amounted to a retaliatory reduction of her assigned duties. At the hearing, Ms. Wade made it clear that her order was meant only to stop Petitioner from contacting UniFirst’s management, an action that was never in Petitioner’s scope of duties. Petitioner was still expected to deal with the UniFirst driver who delivered uniforms to Public Works. Her job duties were unchanged. Petitioner alleged that Ms. Wade retaliated against her by denying her leave to which she was entitled. On February 5, 2018, Petitioner requested that she be allowed to use 2.5 hours of accrued “safety time”3/ that afternoon, and her “floating holiday”4/ on the following day, February 6, 2018. Ms. Wade denied the request. Petitioner nonetheless left work early on February 5, 2018, and did not come into work on the following day, missing 10.5 hours of work in total. The City applied Petitioner’s accrued PTO time, 6.2 hours, to the time she missed work. For the remaining 4.3 hours, Petitioner was charged for leave without pay. Ms. Wade testified that she denied the leave request because the Public Works Department has a written policy stating that if an employee is requesting fewer than five days off, the request should be made no less than 48 hours prior to the employee’s absence.5/ Ms. Wade stated that the policy’s purpose was to ensure that enough employees were present to perform needed work. Supervisors have discretion to deviate from the policy, but only where the employee shows good cause for the failure to provide sufficient notice. In this case, Petitioner provided Ms. Wade with no reason for her request. Petitioner testified that she was never made aware of the policy, and suggested that the City invented the policy after the fact as a response to her claim of discrimination. Petitioner presented documents showing that she had previously been allowed to take time off with less than 48 hours’ notice. Ms. Wade reviewed Petitioner’s documents at the hearing. She did not recall the specific details of any particular leave request, but testified as to her general practice in granting leave with less than 48 hours’ notice. Ms. Wade stated that in some cases, Petitioner had likely made an oral request more than 48 hours prior to the leave, but did not submit the written request into the Kronos system until later. In such cases, Petitioner’s leave request would have been granted. In other cases, Petitioner had likely presented Ms. Wade with extenuating circumstances justifying the short notice. Ms. Wade demonstrated her department’s even-handed application of the policy by producing contemporaneous records showing that other Public Works employees had been denied the use of safety hours and floating holidays when they failed to give 48 hours notice to their supervisors. Petitioner failed to establish that Ms. Wade’s denial of her leave request was retaliatory. Petitioner offered evidence on two issues that were beyond the scope of her Employment Complaint of Discrimination regarding retaliation. First, she claimed that the City retaliated against her by denying her the ability to use “flex time” to work an extra hour on February 1, 2018, so that she could leave an hour early on February 2, 2018. Petitioner claimed that this denial was in derogation of the City’s policy and prior practice. Second, Petitioner claimed that the City retaliated against her by denying her request to attend a training class. The City objected to Petitioner’s presentation of this evidence because these matters were not covered in Petitioner’s second Employment Complaint of Discrimination regarding retaliation. Petitioner conceded that these matters were not mentioned in her retaliation complaint, but maintained that she had submitted materials on these issues to, and discussed them with, the FCHR. She also raised the issues in her subsequent Petition for Relief. The undersigned allowed Petitioner to present her evidence because of the ambiguity of the procedural situation. It appears that during its investigative phase, the FCHR accepted evidence from Petitioner as to issues outside the four corners of Petitioner’s retaliation complaint. However, the FCHR ultimately issued no finding as to probable cause. Thus, it is unclear which issues the FCHR formally considered. While finding persuasive the City’s argument that Petitioner should be held to the issues raised in her Employment Complaint of Discrimination, the undersigned decided that if he were to err, it would be on the side of allowing Petitioner to present all of her evidence at the hearing. As to the first issue outside the Employment Complaint of Discrimination, Petitioner testified that, on February 1, 2018, she requested that she be allowed to work an extra hour and then use the “flex time” to take an hour off work the next day. Petitioner presented an email chain between Ms. Wade and her regarding this request. Ms. Wade ultimately denied the request on the ground that the City does not allow employees to “flex ahead,” i.e., work extra time now in anticipation of taking time off later. Ms. Wade told Petitioner that she would be allowed to flex an hour on February 1, 2018, and then work through her lunch hour on February 2, 2018. Petitioner testified that the City had always allowed her and other employees to flex ahead, and that the denial in this instance could only be explained as retaliation by Ms. Wade for her discrimination complaint. Petitioner did not offer evidence of the City’s written policy on flex time or evidence that the City even had such a policy. She offered exhibits purporting to demonstrate that she and other employees had been allowed to work extra time on one day to take time off on a later date. However, the coding on these documents was not clear and Petitioner did not adequately explain them. The City declined to offer evidence on this issue because of its contention that it was outside the scope of Petitioner’s Employment Complaint of Discrimination. Petitioner failed to establish that Ms. Wade’s stated view of the City’s flex time policy was incorrect or that Ms. Wade deviated from past policy and practice by declining to allow Petitioner to flex ahead on February 1, 2018. As to the second issue outside the Employment Complaint of Discrimination, Petitioner testified that on October 12, 2017, she submitted a request to Ms. Wade to take two training courses being offered by the City: “Attitude Means Everything” and “Communicating with Diplomacy and Tact.” Ms. Wade gave Petitioner permission to take the first class but denied her permission to take the second. Ms. Wade testified that the “Communicating with Diplomacy and Tact” course was designated as a “leadership” course, meaning that only supervisors are generally approved to take it. Petitioner’s position with the City was not supervisory. Petitioner showed Ms. Wade a document that Petitioner stated was a list of employees who had attended the “Communicating with Diplomacy and Tact” course. Petitioner asked Ms. Wade whether all of the listed people were supervisors. Ms. Wade testified that she could not answer the question because she did not know the people on the list, none of whom were employed by Public Works. Petitioner herself did not identify the employees on the list. In the absence of any evidence to demonstrate that Ms. Wade did anything more than follow City policy on training course participation, it cannot be found that Ms. Wade retaliated against Petitioner by denying her request to take the “Communicating with Diplomacy and Tact” course. On February 7, 2018, Petitioner voluntarily resigned her employment with the City. Petitioner alleged that her resignation was a “constructive discharge” due to the City’s denial of paid leave time for February 6, 2018, as well as the other allegedly adverse retaliatory actions taken by the City since the filing of her discrimination complaint. Petitioner offered no credible evidence that the City retaliated against her for engaging in protected activity. The only employee specifically cited by Petitioner as allegedly retaliating against her was her direct supervisor, Ms. Wade. The evidence established that Ms. Wade became aware of Petitioner’s discrimination complaint no earlier than October 6, 2017, after she allegedly retaliated against Petitioner by requiring her to use PTO for an internal job interview. Additionally, Ms. Wade rectified the situation as soon as Mr. Sorensen corrected her understanding of City policy. None of the later allegations of retaliation were credible. In January 2018, Ms. Wade gave Petitioner some minor Administrative Assistant III duties at a time when Public Works was shorthanded, then gave those duties back to the Administrative Assistant III position after the new person was hired and learned the job. There was no reason for Petitioner to take offense at this routine reshuffling of minor job duties. Also in January 2018, Ms. Wade directed Petitioner not to contact UniFirst’s management regarding citywide vendor performance issues. Such contacts were not part of Petitioner’s job duties and Ms. Wade had already counseled Petitioner against taking it upon herself to send emails to UniFirst’s management. Petitioner’s actual job duties in relation to UniFirst’s delivery of uniforms to the Public Works Department never changed. Ms. Wade’s denial of Petitioner’s February 5, 2018, leave request was in keeping with the express policy of the Public Works Department that leave requests be made at least 48 hours prior to the employee’s absence from work. The evidence established that this was not a rigid policy, but Petitioner failed to show that she presented Ms. Wade with the kind of extenuating circumstances that historically have been the basis for granting leave requests less than 48 hours before the employee’s proposed absence. There was nothing retaliatory about Ms. Wade’s following the stated policy of Public Works. Petitioner was allowed to raise two issues that were not included in her Employment Complaint of Discrimination regarding retaliation. As to these issues, Petitioner failed to offer proof sufficient to establish that either Ms. Wade’s denial of her request for flex time or Ms. Wade’s denial of Petitioner’s request to attend a “leadership” training course was an incident of retaliation. Petitioner failed to prove any incidents of retaliation. Because she voluntarily resigned her position with the City, Petitioner did not establish that the City took an adverse employment action against her in any form.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order finding that the City of Ocala did not commit any unlawful employment practices and dismissing the Petition for Relief filed in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of May, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of May, 2019.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner was the subject of an unlawful employment practice by Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a Black male. Respondent is a staffing company that contracts with third party employers. Over 80 percent of Respondent’s employees are Black. After Respondent matches a candidate with a job opening, the third-party employer interviews the candidate for employment. If the candidate is employed by the third party, the employee must abide by the third-party employer’s policies as well as the employment policies of Respondent. Petitioner was hired by Respondent some time in January 2008. Respondent requires all employees to notify Respondent of his or her absence prior to that employee’s scheduled report time for their employment. Respondent also requires that all employees report to work at their scheduled report time. Failure to either call in or show up for work is known as a ‘no call/no show’. The employment policies of Respondent reflect that a “no call/no show” is grounds for termination. Petitioner received a copy of Respondent’s employee handbook, which included the “no call/no show” provision. He was also aware of Respondent’s “no call/no show” policy. Around January 14, 2008, Respondent successfully matched Petitioner with a position at BR Williams Trucking Company (BR Williams). Like Respondent, BR Williams maintains a policy of termination when an employee fails to show up for work or does not call in prior to the start of the work day to report their absence. Petitioner’s scheduled report time for BR Williams was 7:00 a.m. On March 3, 2008, Petitioner contacted Respondent’s Regional Sales Manager, Diane Jarrett, to report that he had overheard a racial slur that a White employee, Harry Hingson, had made to another employee. Like Petitioner, Mr. Hingson had been placed at BR Williams by Respondent and was an employee of both Respondent and BR Williams. Ms. Jarrett sent Respondent’s Human Resources Assistant, Annis Herndon, to BR Williams to terminate Mr. Hingson for having made the racial slur. She met with Mr. Wilkinson, BR Williams’ manager. Mr. Hingson was terminated from BR Williams. Neither Ms. Jarrett nor Ms. Herndon disclosed that Petitioner had reported Mr. Hingson’s racial slur to her. After the termination, Mr. Wilkinson mentioned to a group of employees, including Petitioner, that he hated to fire Mr. Hingson because “everybody needs a job.” The evidence did not demonstrate that Mr. Wilkinson said that “once he found out who did this, they will pay.” Petitioner felt that Mr. Wilkinson was talking to him or targeting him because Mr. Wilkinson looked him in the eyes during the meeting. Mr. Wilkinson did not testify at the hearing. As a consequence, there is no competent evidence regarding Mr. Wilkinson’s intent showing any look he may or may not have given Petitioner. On March 24, 2008, Petitioner worked his regular shift at BR Williams. On the evening of March 24, 2008, Petitioner was arrested for driving while intoxicated (DUI) and was held in jail overnight. He was released two days later on March 26, 2008. On March 25, 2008, Petitioner was scheduled to begin his shift at 7 a.m. Petitioner did not report to work as scheduled because he was in jail. Petitioner also did not call Respondent to report his absence prior to the beginning of his shift or during the morning of March 25, 2008. Mr. Wilkinson called Respondent around 9:00 a.m. and reported that Petitioner was not at work and had not called in. He did not know where Petitioner was. Respondent could not locate Petitioner at his home. Mr. Wilkinson instructed Respondent that if he or Respondent did not hear from Petitioner before noon, Petitioner was terminated for not showing up at work and not calling in. About 1:00 p.m., after Petitioner was terminated by BR Williams, Petitioner called Respondent collect from jail. He was advised that he had been terminated from BR Williams. After speaking with Petitioner, Respondent called BR Williams to report that Petitioner had called in after noon and that she had told him that he had been terminated from BR Williams. Respondent did not tell Petitioner that he was terminated from Cardinal Staffing. BR Williams’ decision to terminate Petitioner was not based on his race or his complaint regarding Mr. Hingson’s racial slur. Indeed, there was no competent evidence to suggest that Petitioner was terminated from BR Williams for any reason other than he was in jail, and did not report to work as scheduled. Petitioner was not terminated from Cardinal Staffing. Petitioner left a message on Respondent’s answering machine on March 27 or March 28, 2008. Return calls by Respondent could not be left at the numbers that Respondent had for Petitioner. He did not contact Respondent again until August 2008, at which time there were no positions available for him. Importantly, Petitioner was not terminated from Respondent. As with all Respondent’s employees, Petitioner had the responsibility of calling Respondent as often as possible to check if other employment opportunities were available. If Petitioner had contacted Respondent to seek placement during April–June, 2008, and if a placement for which Petitioner was qualified had been available, Respondent would have sent him for an interview with the prospective employer. Indeed, it was Petitioner’s lack of action that caused him to miss any employment opportunities that may have been available to him during April – June, 2008. After August 2008, Petitioner did not contact Respondent to seek other employment opportunities. Petitioner identified two non-minority employees that were terminated from their third-party employer jobs and received new assignments with another of Respondent’s clients. The two employees were Jason Whibble and Sherita Cheshire. Neither of these employees was similarly situated to Petitioner. Mr. Whibble was terminated for having a felony conviction involving multiple traffic tickets. Ms. Cheshire was terminated because she could not perform her job duties. After termination, both employees called in on a daily or weekly basis to check to see if any job openings were available. In this case, Petitioner was terminated for a very different reason from BR Williams. Petitioner also did not frequently call Respondent to check for job openings that might be available to him. Indeed, Petitioner has not identified any similarly situated non-Black employee of Respondent’s who was terminated from an employment assignment on the basis of an employer’s “no call/no show” policy and was treated more favorably than Petitioner. The evidence was clear that Petitioner was not terminated from Cardinal Staffing and failed to maintain frequent contact with them. Clearly, Respondent did not discriminate against Petitioner. Given these facts, the Petition for Relief should be dismissed.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a Final Order dismissing the Petition for Relief with prejudice. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of May, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of May, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Walter Jan Pietruszka, Esquire Shumaker Loop & Kendrick 101 East Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 2800 Tampa, Florida 33602 Melvin Lee Butler 40 Jack Scott Road Quincy, Florida 32351 Robert E. Larkin, III, Esquire Allen, Norton & Blue, P.A. 906 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Respondent imposed an unlawful employment practice upon the Petitioner, whether the Petitioner has a disability and was subjected to disability discrimination in the course of the purported unlawful employment practice or event.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent Willstaff Crystal, Inc., (Willstaff) is engaged in the business of employee staffing for client companies who need employees. The process essentially concerts of prospective employees submitting employment applications for job placement to Willstaff. Willstaff then seeks to place that person as a hired employee with a firm or company which is one of its clients, (i.e., has requested that Willstaff assist it in finding employees for its business). On or about August 18, 2003, the Petitioner, Janet Shaffer, made application with Willstaff for employment placement. The application was not for employment as an employee of Willstaff, but rather for placement in a job with a company which might be a client of Willstaff. After placing Ms. Shaffer in two temporary job assignments with two different employers, she was assigned a job placement with Moldex Inc., on about October 27, 2003. Her duties at Moldex consisted of performing assembly line-type duties including cutting rubber hoses using an "air Knife." The placement and job assignments that Willstaff had secured for Ms. Shaffer during 2003 were designed to be temporary employment assignments. At some point during her shift, while employed with Moldex, Ms. Shaffer was required to place a box on a shelf above her head. She had some difficulty doing so, she says, because of her arm or shoulder injury, and requested assistance from a co-worker. Ms. Shaffer testified at hearing that due to a previous shoulder injury she is unable to lift her right arm above shoulder level. Her shoulder causes her pain, but she was not currently under a doctors care and her injury did not limit any major life activities. In any event after working only two days with Moldex, Inc., she was released from employment at Moldex, Inc.'s request due to low job productivity. Ms. Shaffer believes according to her testimony, that Moldex, Inc., terminated her as a proximate result of her requesting assistance from a co-worker due to her inability to reach above shoulder level because of her pre- existing shoulder injury. Her testimony establishes that if she an unlawful employment practice it was at the hands of Moldex, Inc.; not Willstaff. She indicated quite clearly in her testimony that she had no intent to pursue a claim against Willstaff, but only against Moldex, Inc.; because she believed that Moldex, Inc.; had terminated her, due to her limitation because of her shoulder injury. She stated that she named Willstaff as the Respondent in this case by her Petition for Relief because she was instructed to do so by some unknown individual who helped her prepare the Petition for Relief. Ursula Maurice testified as a representative of Willstaff. Her testimony establishes that Willstaff had no knowledge that Ms. Shaffer suffered from a disability. No adverse employment action was ever taken by Willstaff against the Petitioner. In fact, the Petitioner was never an employee of Willstaff. Moreover, Willstaff has an "EEO policy" in place and properly noticed its employees and Ms. Shaffer had never availed herself of it or made any formal complaint to anyone at Willstaff regarding discrimination, whether by Moldex, Inc. or any other entity. In any event, the Petitioner's own testimony establishes that she has no physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of her major life activities. She also failed to established that she was qualified for the job in question with or without reasonable accommodations, that is, the job she briefly occupied at Moldex, Inc. She did establish that she suffered an adverse employment action or decision because she was "let go" from her employment at Moldex, Inc. She did not establish clearly that Moldex, Inc., had any knowledge of her disability. Finally, and most to the point, the Petitioner has not established, and freely admits, that she was not an employee of Willstaff. Therefore, she did not suffer an adverse employment action or decision made by Willstaff. She clearly stated in her testimony that her complaint is properly against Moldex, Inc. Nonetheless, Moldex, Inc., has not been served with a petition, has not been made a party respondent, and has not been noticed of this proceeding, including the hearing. Therefore it is not legally charged with having to defend itself at this juncture, as to any employment decision it may have made regarding the Petitioner in this proceeding.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations denying the Petition its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of June, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of June, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Janet Shaffer 6401 Da Lisa Road Milton, Florida 32583 John T. Bender, Esquire McFadden, Lyon & Rouse, L.L.C. 718 Downtowner Boulevard Mobile, Alabama 36609 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of her race in violation of Pinellas County Code Chapter 70 (the Code).
Findings Of Fact The Department investigated the complaint of Petitioner and issued a determination on August 7, 2007, that reasonable cause exists to believe that Respondent discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of her race. Petitioner is an African- American female. At the hearing, Petitioner presented a prima facie case of discrimination that is undisputed in the evidentiary record. Respondent is an "employer." Respondent employed Petitioner from December 19, 2006, through February 16, 2007. Respondent employs approximately five employees. Respondent was the only African-American employee. Respondent paid Petitioner at the rate of $7.00 an hour. Petitioner performed the duties required by the terms of her employment in a competent and reliable manner. Petitioner received no complaints from her employer concerning the performance of her job duties. The first adverse employment action occurred on January 29, 2007, when Respondent reduced the hours for Petitioner's shift from 40 hours a week to 24 hours. The second adverse employment action occurred on February 5, 2007, when Respondent reduced the hours for Petitioner's shift to 16 hours. Respondent did not reduce the hours of any Caucasian employee. The final adverse employment action occurred on February 16, 2007, when Respondent terminated Petitioner's employment without cause and with no explanation. Respondent replaced Petitioner with a Caucasian employee who works a 40-hour schedule. No evidence of record shows that Respondent took any adverse employment action against a Caucasian employee. During the Department's investigation of this matter, the Department provided Respondent with repeated opportunities to respond to the allegations, to participate as a party subject to investigation, and to participate in mediation. Respondent has not responded to the allegations of racial discrimination. Petitioner submitted no proof of damages other than lost wages. The Code does not prescribe the methodology for calculating lost wages and interest. The Department interprets the Code to mean that Petitioner is entitled to lost wages through the date of the final order to be issued in this proceeding plus interest at the statutory rate prescribed by the chief financial officer of the state in accordance with Subsection 55.03(1), Florida Statutes (2007). The total amount of lost wages through the date of this Recommended Order is $16,856.00. The trier of fact calculated lost wages in the following manner. If Petitioner had suffered no adverse employment action, Petitioner would have worked 40 hours a week at $7.00 an hour for 62 weeks from January 29, 2007, through the date of this Order on April 11, 2008, for a total of $17,360.00. That amount is offset by the wages Petitioner earned after the first and second adverse employment actions in a total amount of $504.00. The difference between $17,360.00 and $504.00 is $16,856.00. The total amount of lost wages through the date of the Recommended Order, in the amount of $16,856.00, must be increased by the amount of lost wages from the date of the Recommended Order through the date of the final order to be issued in this proceeding. That amount will be determined according to the date of the final order if the final order does not modify the Recommended Order after receiving the parties' exceptions to the Recommended Order. No reduction to lost wages is made for wages earned by Petitioner from another employer after the date of the final adverse employment action on February 16, 2007. Neither Petitioner nor Respondent submitted any evidence that Petitioner earned wages from another employer or received unemployment benefits. The record deprives the trier of fact of a factual basis for an offset to lost wages owed by Respondent. The website of the chief financial officer prescribes rates of interest for current and past years to be utilized in determining interest due on judgments and decrees. The applicable interest rate for 2007 and 2008 is 11 percent. The interest rate will apply to the unpaid portion of the amount determined to be due, if any, in the final order until Respondent pays the amount due, if any. Petitioner is not entitled to attorney's fees and costs. Petitioner is pro se and submitted no evidence of having incurred attorney's fees or other costs.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued finding Respondent guilty of the allegations of racial discrimination against Petitioner and awarding Petitioner the lost wages and interest described in this Recommended Order. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of April, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of April, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Queenie E. Booth Post Office Box 35201 St. Petersburg, Florida 33705 Theresa Jones St. Petersburg Department of Community Affairs Post Office Box 2842 St. Petersburg, Florida 33731-2842 William C. Falkner, Esquire Pinellas County Attorney's Office 315 Court Street Clearwater, Florida 33756 Robert J. Molitar Oar Enterprises, Inc. 4807 22nd Avenue South St. Petersburg, Florida 33711
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent unlawfully discriminated against Petitioner by discharging Petitioner from her employment because of her age in violation of Section 760.10(1), Florida Statutes (1997). (All chapter and section references are to Florida Statutes (1997) unless otherwise stated).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a member of a protected class. Petitioner was born on July 6, 1945, and was 40 years or older on August 19, 1995, when the alleged unlawful discrimination occurred. Respondent engaged in an adverse employment action. On August 19, 1995, Respondent discharged Petitioner from her employment as an Executive Housekeeper. Respondent engaged in the adverse employment because of Petitioner's age. Petitioner submitted direct evidence of age discrimination. On August 19, 1995, Petitioner's supervisor telephoned Respondent at her home. The supervisor told Respondent she had been laid off from her job. When Petitioner asked why, the supervisor stated that two younger employees, ages 26 and 27, could get more done than Petitioner because they were younger. Even if there were no direct evidence of age discrimination, Petitioner provided sufficient inferential evidence of age discrimination. When the supervisor telephoned Petitioner to inform her that she had been discharged, the supervisor stated that business was "slow" due to remodeling of the motel. However, there is sufficient inferential evidence to conclude that this explanation from the supervisor was a pretext for age discrimination. The Days Inn Central location on West Colonial Drive includes approximately 40 rooms. As the Executive Housekeeper, Petitioner supervised two younger housekeepers. Respondent did not discharge any employee except Petitioner and did not retain any employees who were 40 or older. Petitioner had been continuously employed by Respondent for more than 10 years. During that time, Petitioner was progressively promoted from housekeeper to executive housekeeper, had consistently received positive employment evaluations, and had consistently received progressive pay raises. Petitioner received treatment disparate from that of other similarly situated individuals in a non-protected class. There is sufficient evidence of bias to infer a causal connection between her age and the disparate treatment. Respondent failed to submit any evidence to rebut the inference. Soon after 1983, Petitioner began working for Respondent at the Days Inn on Lee Road as an assistant housekeeper. She started as an assistant housekeeper earning minimum wage. By 1986, Petitioner had been promoted to head housekeeper at the Midtown location and was earning $7.50 an hour for approximately 50 hours a week. Thereafter, Petitioner was promoted to Executive Housekeeper at the Central location and paid an annual salary of $18,500. Petitioner was unemployed from August 19, 1995, until July 1, 1996, or approximately 317 days. The per diem rate of compensation based on an annual salary of $18,500 is approximately $50.68. Total back pay for 317 days of unemployment at $50.68 per day is approximately $16,065.56. Respondent re-hired Petitioner on July 2, 1996, as a housekeeper at the Lake Buena Vista location. Respondent paid Petitioner $6.50 an hour for an average of 5.5 hours a day, or approximately $35.75 a day. Respondent continued that rate of compensation until July 12, 1999, or approximately 375 days. The difference in per diem compensation before and after her discharge is approximately $14.93 for 375 days, or $5,598.75. From July 12, 1999, to the date of hearing on September 1, 1999, approximately 50 days, Petitioner worked at the Days Inn on Sand Lake Road as a housekeeper. Respondent paid Petitioner $5.75 an hour for 7.5 hours a day seven days a week. The per diem rate of compensation was $43.13. The difference in per diem compensation before and after Petitioner's discharge is approximately $7.55 for 50 days, or $377.50. The total back pay is $22,041.81 plus any sum due Petitioner from the date of the hearing to the date that Respondent pays Petitioner all back pay and reinstates Petitioner to her former level of compensation. The total back pay of $22,041.81 is comprised of $16,065.56 for the 317 days from August 19, 1995, through July 1, 1996; plus $5,598.75 for the 375 days from July 2, 1996, through July 12, 1999; plus $377.50 for the 50 days from July 13, 1999, through September 1, 1999. Section 760.11(9) provides that no liability for back pay may accrue from a date more than two years "prior" to the filing of a complaint with the Commission. However, Section 760.11(9) does not limit Respondent's liability for back pay after a complaint is filed with the Commission. Respondent discharged Petitioner on August 19, 1995. Petitioner filed a complaint with the Commission on August 23, 1995. The amount of back pay determined herein does not accrue from a date more than two years prior to the filing of the complaint with the Commission. The amount of back pay accrues from a date after the filing of the complaint with the Commission. Section 760.11(7), in relevant part, authorizes the presiding Administrative Law Judge to recommend affirmative relief from the effects of an unlawful employment practice. Affirmative relief includes, but is not limited to back pay. In addition to a loss of income, Petitioner's discharge from her employment resulted in the loss of her residence, the repossession of her automobile, and a loss of good credit. However, Petitioner failed to submit evidence sufficient to establish a monetary value for those losses.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the unlawful employment practices alleged in the Charge of Discrimination filed with the Florida Commission on Human Relations ("FCHR") and, if so, what relief should Petitioner be granted.
Findings Of Fact Background At all times material to this proceeding, Petitioner, an African-American male, was employed in the Public Works Department ("Public Works") of the City of Pompano Beach ("the City" or "Respondent"). In or around 1995, Petitioner——who had worked for the City since 1981——was promoted to a superintendent position and assigned to oversee two separate divisions within Public Works: the streets division and the grounds division. Although Petitioner was described in personnel documents as "Streets Superintendent," his functional title within Public Works was "Streets and Grounds Superintendent." In September 2006, the City hired Robert McCaughan——a retired civil engineering officer with the United States Air Force——to serve as its new Director of Public Works, the top position within the department. Mr. McCaughan is Caucasian. At the time of his hire (and until June 22, 2009, when a reorganization occurred), Public Works was structured such that four superintendents——all Caucasian with the exception of Petitioner——reported to Mr. McCaughan: Petitioner, who headed the streets and grounds divisions and oversaw approximately 100 employees, including five supervisors; Roger Palermo, the superintendent of building maintenance, who had roughly 15 employees under his authority, including one supervisor; Mark Stevens, the superintendent of the fleet maintenance division, who oversaw approximately ten employees, including one foreman; and Steve Rocco, the airpark manager, who had six employees under his authority, including one supervisor. Soon after he began his employment with the City, Mr. McCaughan became aware——through the receipt of complaints from various employees, which Mr. McCaughan accepted as credible——of issues with Petitioner's management techniques and ability to behave amicably with others in the workplace. For instance, Arnold McRay, who reported directly to Petitioner and served as the grounds supervisor, complained to Mr. McCaughan that Petitioner often exhibited a dictatorial management style that made it difficult to get work done. Mr. McRay, who is African-American, also reported that Petitioner would often talk down to him and micromanage leave approvals. In addition to Mr. McRay's comments, Mr. McCaughan also received complaints from two other supervisors under Petitioner's authority: Russell Ketchum, the solid waste supervisor, who advised that Petitioner exhibited a lack of communication and engaged in behavior that made it difficult to complete tasks; and Dick Tench, the grounds supervisor, who indicated that Petitioner, on at least one occasion, interfered with the discipline of an employee under his (Mr. Tench's) supervision. Significantly, Mr. McRay, Mr. Tench, and Mr. Ketchum also complained that Petitioner had ordered them not to speak directly to Mr. McCaughan about work matters. Although Petitioner, when asked, denied that he made such an order, it was clear to Mr. McCaughan that Petitioner, in one way or another, had created the distinct impression among the complaining supervisors that work issues could only be addressed with him (Petitioner).3/ Reorganization of Public Works Beginning in 2007, the City began to face a budgetary crisis that resulted from declining tax revenues and increasing costs. As a result, a strict hiring freeze (that continued through 2010) was instituted, in which most vacant positions throughout the City remained unfilled. Petitioner, like all other managers within the City, was prohibited from filling any position that was not designated as essential.4 / In late 2008 or early 2009, the City Manager at that time, Keith Chadwell, considered a possible merger of Public Works with the City's Parks and Recreation Department. Although the merger concept was ultimately rejected, Mr. McCaughan decided, in an effort to improve efficiency, to move forward with a reorganization of Public Works. Pursuant to the reorganization, which was implemented on June 22, 2009, the grounds and solid waste divisions were removed from Petitioner's supervision, which reduced the number of employees under his charge by approximately 80 percent (from more than 100 employees to 20). As a consequence, three of the four supervisors who previously reported to Petitioner—— Mr. McRay, Mr. Tench, and Mr. Ketchum, each of whom had lodged complaints about Petitioner——were reassigned to Mr. McCaughan's direct supervision. Petitioner retained his status as a superintendent, however, and suffered no loss of pay or benefits. On June 22, 2009, Mr. McCaughan informed Petitioner of the reorganization, and, on the following day, provided Petitioner with a detailed organizational chart that placed Petitioner on notice that his supervisory duties had been diminished in the manner described above. As part of the overall goal to enhance efficiency, Mr. McCaughan also decided to change the manner in which clerical services were provided within the streets, grounds, and solid waste divisions. In particular, Mr. McCaughan created a central pool of clerical workers that served the three divisions as a whole——as opposed to the previous arrangement, where superintendents such as Petitioner were each assigned assistants of their own. Under the new system, management employees that required clerical help would contact the head secretary, Ruth Bobbi, who in turn would assign the task to a member of the secretarial pool. There is no credible evidence that the reorganization of the clerical staff caused Petitioner to suffer any meaningful deprivation of secretarial services. On the contrary, the evidence demonstrates that Petitioner was at all times authorized to bring assignments to Ms. Bobbi to be distributed to a secretary in the general pool. Post-Reorganization Events Needless to say, Petitioner disagreed vehemently with Mr. McCaughan's reorganization of the Public Works Department. Within a week of the restructuring, Petitioner filed a written complaint with Phyllis Korab, the Interim City Manager at that time, which alleged that Mr. McCaughan and Michael Smith——the Director of Human Resources for the City, who had no authority whatsoever over Petitioner——had discriminated against him. Because the City's Director of Human Resources was specifically named in the complaint, Ms. Korab decided to retain an outside investigator to examine Petitioner's allegations. Ms. Korab ultimately hired Ms. Rita Craig (of "The Craig Group"), who had previously served as the head of the Florida Commission on Human Relations. At the conclusion of her investigation, Ms. Craig recommended to the City that Petitioner's office be relocated closer to Mr. McCaughan's office——to improve communications——and away from employees with whom Petitioner did not get along.5 / Mr. McCaughan ultimately accepted the suggestion and moved Petitioner's office to the public works administration building, the location where his (Mr. McCaughan's) office was housed. In early 2010, Mr. McCaughan conducted Petitioner's annual performance evaluation, which was finalized on March 24, 2011, and reviewed by Petitioner one week later. In the evaluation, Mr. McCaughan assessed Petitioner's overall performance as "very effective," the second highest of five possible ratings, and one ranking higher than "fully effective," which the City equates to a "clearly satisfactory level of achievement." In other words, Petitioner's overall performance was rated as exceeding the City's requirements.6 / Ostracism During his final hearing testimony in this proceeding, Petitioner complained that some employees within the City refused to speak with him after the reorganization of Public Works. Petitioner's testimony on this issue, which was vague at best, is credited only to the extent that Helen Gray, the city engineer, ceased communications with Petitioner following the restructuring.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order adopting the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law contained in this Recommended Order. Further, it is RECOMMENDED that the final order dismiss the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of January, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S Edward T. Bauer Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of January, 2012.
Findings Of Fact Respondent was employed by the Brevard County School District on January 15, 1990, as a Secretary III, Classified. She was assigned as secretary to Margaret Lewis, Director of Vocational Education. Classified employees are distinguished from certified employees who are teachers or administrators who hold teaching certificates. Respondent's duties included typing, handling and filing documents and correspondence, keeping budget and payroll records, copying and receiving incoming phone calls to the Department of Vocational Education. For approximately six months, Respondent and her supervisor had a good working relationship. Both were new to the Brevard County School District, and Margaret Lewis felt that together they could make positive changes in the unit. Respondent's personnel evaluation dated March 15, 1990, rates her in the "exceptional high" range in every category, with the highest possible rating being given in the categories, "work attitude," "cooperativeness," "personal appearance" and "tardiness." Something happened in the summer of 1990 around the time that the unit was moving from its office in Rockledge to the new district building in the Brevard County Governmental Center at Viera. The relationship between the two women rapidly deteriorated, a phenomenon observed by co-workers and the assistant superintendents, including Margaret Lewis' supervisor, Daniel Scheuerer. The circumstances were confusing, even to Jerry Copeland, Assistant Superintendent of Personnel Services. None could pinpoint the cause of the rift, although both Ms. Cooper and Ms. Lewis offered their own theories. Ms. Cooper described her supervisor arriving at work one morning crying and upset over some domestic situation. She went into Ms. Lewis' office with her and urged her to go home. Ms. Lewis eventually did leave and was gone for several days. Upon her return, Ms. Cooper felt that Ms. Lewis was very cool toward her and began communicating with her through notes or through messages to other staff. Ms. Lewis believes Ms. Cooper's work attitude changed radically after she was passed over for a secretarial position in the School Board attorney's office. On two occasions, Ms. Cooper approached Abraham Collinsworth, the Superintendent, with concerns she had about Margaret Lewis. Mr. Collinsworth referred the matter back to Dr. Scheuerer, Ms. Lewis' supervisor and the Assistant Superintendent for Instructional Services. Dr. Scheuerer told the superintendent that he had a very disruptive situation with loud conversations and people not feeling good about each other. During the several months period, July through September 1990, Dr. Scheuerer met with the women individually and together. Ms. Cooper complained that Ms. Lewis required her to make too many copies of things, that she communicated with her through yellow stickers, "post-it" notes, and that she, Ms. Lewis, would not tell her where she was going. Dr. Scheuerer counselled Ms. Cooper to adapt to her supervisor's way of doing things and also made suggestions to Ms. Lewis of ways to improve communications, for example, allowing her secretary to keep the calendar. The meeting he had with both women together was very unpleasant. It was obvious that there was a lot of hostility and animosity, tension and stress between the two. Generally, however, Ms. Lewis conducted herself in a professional manner. Ms. Cooper kept a tape recorder that she used to play subliminal tapes. Ms. Lewis felt that she was using the tape recorder to tape their conversations. Ms. Lewis felt that Ms. Cooper spent an inordinate amount of time away from her desk and abused break periods. Ms. Cooper said that she was making deliveries or copying. Ms. Lewis begin writing notes of their confrontations in order to avoid getting emotionally involved. This seemed to inflame Ms. Cooper. Ms. Cooper's reaction to direction was often either a sullen shrug or a verbal retort. Ms. Cooper felt Ms. Lewis gave her conflicting or serial requests. She also kept notes of their interactions. Early on the morning of October 8, 1990, several employees in the area of Ms. Cooper's and Ms. Lewis' office overheard a verbal confrontation between the two. Ms. Cooper had her voice raised and when Ms. Lewis asked her not to talk so loud, she replied she wanted everyone to hear. It was obvious to Daniel Scheuerer, who also overheard part of the confrontation, that Ms. Cooper was the one doing the yelling. On October 9, 1990, Ms. Lewis gave Ms. Cooper the following written reprimand: This is a formal letter of reprimand as a result of your unacceptable behavior on the morning of October 8, 1990. It is being issued as a result of your intentional (you stated that you wanted to be heard by everyone when I asked you to lower your voice) vociferous and disruptive shouting at me in your work area and the disrespect which you displayed toward me as your supervisor after I had made reasonable requests. This type of behavior is unacceptable, disturbing and disruptive to the work effort of the department and the entire area. This is to inform you that any similar outburst of this matter will result in your immediate termination. CC: Personnel File (Petitioner's exhibit No. 5) Sometime around the end of September, or early October, Karen Denbo, the district Equal Employment Opportunity Officer, had a secretarial position open that would have been a lateral transfer (same level, same pay) for Janice Cooper. She applied, and Dr. Scheuerer asked Ms. Denbo to interview Ms. Cooper. Ms. Denbo asked if he was telling her to hire Ms. Cooper. Dr. Scheuerer was given the impression by both Ms. Cooper and Ms. Denbo that they had misgivings about Ms. Cooper performing in a position requiring a lot of technical filings for which there would be no training. Ms. Cooper was not offered the transfer and no other efforts were made to find Ms. Cooper alternative employment. On October 26, 1990, Ms. Lewis gave Janice Cooper a memorandum titled "Job Expectations." It informed her that her supervisor had concerns regarding job performance, relationships with other employees, work attitude and failure to follow administrative directives. It directed her to take specified times for break and it stated she must be accurate, careful, effective and courteous. It stated that her performance was not satisfactory and warned that "failure to make necessary adjustments will result in additional disciplinary action." (Petitioner's exhibit No. 6) On November 1, 1990, near the end of the work week, Ms. Lewis needed some coping done and could not find Janice Cooper. She filled out a copy request form and put Ms. Cooper's name as the contact person. Ms. Cooper returned and Ms. Lewis asked if the form was completed properly. Ms. Cooper looked at it and then replied, "It if says what you want it to say, then its alright." After Ms. Lewis returned to her office, Ms. Cooper followed her in and said if she was going to use her name she needed to get her permission first. As Ms. Lewis began writing down Ms. Cooper's comments, Ms. Cooper reached across the desk, knocking off pencils and paper, and tore the paper out of her hand. Ms. Lewis reached for the phone and asked Dr. Scheuerer to come immediately. Ms. Cooper left and did not return until November 5th, after the weekend. In the meantime, Ms. Lewis met with Dr. Scheuerer; the Assistant Superintendent of Personnel, Jerry Copeland; and the Labor Relations Director, Bob Barrett. Upon Ms. Cooper's return to work, Ms. Lewis called her in to her office. Bob Barrett was also present. She was given this letter: November 5, 1990 Ms. Janice Cooper, Secretary Vocational Education Department Dear Ms. Cooper: This is to inform you that your employment with the School Board of Brevard County is terminated effective immediately, November 5, 1990. The reason for this termination is your unsatisfactory performance. You have been counseled and warned on several occasions regarding the need to improve your performance. On October 26, 1990, you were provided a memorandum which outlined your responsibilities and gave you direction for improving your performance. You were notified that your performance was unsatisfactory and that your failure to make the necessary adjustments would bring additional disciplinary action. Since October 26, 1990, your performance has continued to deteriorate to the point that your unwillingness to make the effort required to function as a Secretary III necessitates this action. Prior to your departure from the work site today, you should turn in any keys or other such School Board material which was issued to you to uses in your job. Sincerely, Margaret Lewis Director, Vocational Education (Respondent's Exhibit No. 2) (emphasis in original) When asked if she had anything to say, Ms. Cooper made no response and refused to acknowledge receipt of the letter. She was directed to collect her personal items and to leave the office. With guidance from the State Department of Education, the Brevard County School District has a policy of discipline of all employees which it calls, "NEAT." The acronym stands for the right to "Notice," followed by "Explanation," followed by "Assistance," within a reasonable "Time." If the deficiencies are not corrected at the end of this process, the employee may be terminated. The School Board's adopted rule 6Gx5-7.05, provides in pertinent part: Suspension/Dismissal. A certificated employee may be suspended or dismissed at any time during the work year pursuant to provisions set forth in Florida Statute 230.33(7)(h), 231.36(4)(6) and the Rules of the Educational Practices Commission. A classified employee may be dismissed for cause. The immediate supervisor shall suspend the employee and notify him/her in writing of the recommendation for dismissal, stating the cause. Termination Date. The effective date of any termination of employment or suspension shall be the last day on which the employee works. (Respondent's Exhibit No. 1) In addition to the above, the School Board's administrative staff acknowledge an employee's right to a pre-termination process that gives her an opportunity to explain why she should not be terminated. The record in this proceeding establishes that Janice Cooper was insubordinate on several occasions. She yelled at her supervisor, disrupting the workplace; she refused to follow instructions or was insolent; and finally, she virtually assaulted her supervisor when she grabbed the paper and tore it up. There is little specific evidence, however, of her poor job performance. Her only evaluation during the ten months of her employment was exceptionally positive. The "Job Expectations" memorandum was provided four days before the incident leading to Ms. Cooper's separation, which incident was plainly insubordination or misconduct, but not "poor job performance." The administrative staff make no apparent distinction between "termination" and "suspension" as both are separations from employment; and they do not view Ms. Lewis' letter, therefore, as a violation of the policy described in paragraph 18 above. Practically, there is no distinction, as no separation is final until the Board takes its action. In the meantime, the employee is no longer on the payroll. In Ms. Cooper's case, the time off of the payroll has been two years, most of which time has been the result of circumstances beyond the control of the School Board. Neither before, nor immediately after her termination by Margaret Lewis, was Janice Cooper offered reasonable opportunity to explain why she should not be terminated. She was given the letter and asked if she had a response. The letter states that termination is a fait accompli. She did not respond, and was told to leave. No evidence was presented as to the need to take immediate action. Both the district and Ms. Cooper could have benefited from a brief cooling off period; the district, by taking the time to draft a letter reflecting the proper cause for its action; and Ms. Cooper, by having an opportunity to reflect on her employment jeopardy and to prepare a response. The district presented evidence sufficient to support a finding of cause to terminate Ms. Cooper. It did not, however, prove that the cause was "poor performance." For that reason, and because the employee was not offered a reasonable opportunity to respond, the termination procedure was fatally flawed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the School Board of Brevard County enter its final order reinstating Janice Cooper to full back pay and benefits from November 9, 1990, until and including October 7, 1992, and approving her termination effective October 7, 1992. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 20th day of January 1993. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of January 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitute specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings Adopted in Paragraph 1. Adopted in Paragraph 3. Adopted in Paragraph 4. Adopted in substance in Paragraph 7. Adopted in substance in Paragraph 10. Adopted in substance in Paragraph 8. Adopted in substance in Paragraph 10. Adopted in substance in Paragraph 11. With the exception of the October 26, 1990 memo, the facts proposed here are rejected as unsupported by the weight of evidence. Poor performance was not proven, nor was it proven that Respondent was taping conversations, rather than playing her own "subliminal tapes." Adopted in substance in Paragraph 14. Adopted in substance in Paragraph 16. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. Moreover, there was some mention of a grievance, but no evidence of what this process was or whether it was actually filed and withdrawn. Adopted in Paragraph 17. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence, as to unsatisfactory job performance, which is distinguished, according to the School Board's witness, from "insubordination" or misconduct. (Transcript, p. 70-71) Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Respondent's Proposed Findings Adopted in Paragraph 1. Adopted in substance in Paragraph 16. Adopted in Paragraph 18. 4-8. Rejected as argument or conclusions, or summary of testimony rather than discrete findings of fact. Some of those arguments and conclusions have been adopted in the conclusions of law herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Harold T. Bistline, Esquire Building E 1970 Michigan Avenue Cocoa, Florida 32922 F. Michael Driscoll, Esquire Suite 58 3815 North Highway One Cocoa, Florida 32926 Abraham L. Collinsworth, Superintendent Brevard County School Board 2700 St. Johns Street Melbourne, Florida 32940-6699 Betty Castor, Commissioner Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether Respondent violated the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as alleged in the Charge of Discrimination filed by Petitioner on May 4, 2001.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an African-American woman who was employed by Respondent from July 2000 until her termination on January 24, 2001. At the time she was hired, the staff at the store location where Petitioner was employed was comprised of mostly black females. Initially, Petitioner held the position of hotline operator. In December 2000, she became an assistant manager of the store and another African-American woman, Latasha Green became the store manager. According to Petitioner, problems began to arise after she and Ms. Green were promoted to managerial positions. While an assistant manager, Petitioner's duties included closing the store and taking deposits to the bank where she had a key to the store's safe deposit box. On January 5, 2001, Petitioner and Ms. Green attended a meeting with their supervisor, Jason Rudd, a white male. This meeting was upsetting to Petitioner because of comments made to her and to Ms. Green by Mr. Rudd. In particular, Mr. Rudd commented that there were too many "dark clouds" in the store, which Petitioner interpreted to be racist remarks. At the January 5, 2001, meeting, Petitioner learned that a white male, Jason Smith, was going to be brought in as the new store manager. With this change in personnel, Ms. Green was demoted from store manager to assistant manager and Petitioner was demoted from assistant manager to hotline operator. When Petitioner was demoted, she did not receive a cut in pay. Petitioner informed Mr. Rudd that it was her intention to leave her employment with Respondent because her sister was ill. She informed Mr. Rudd that January 25, 2001, would be her last day. However, she was terminated on January 24, 2001. Between January 4 and January 24, 2001, three white males were hired, and four black females, including Petitioner and Ms. Miller, were discharged. The reason for her termination on the Report of Employee's Termination form was "not working out." However, on the same form, her job performance, attendance, and cooperation were rated as "good." Additionally, the form had a blank following the question, "Would you rehire this employee?" The blank was filled in, "yes." Petitioner filed for unemployment compensation and initially received $512.00 in unemployment benefits. However, after a telephone hearing, the Division of Unemployment Compensation informed her that she must repay the $512.00. At the time of her discharge, Petitioner was earning approximately $250.00 per week. Petitioner seeks back pay, the $512.00 in unemployment compensation, and a verbal apology from Respondent.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order finding that Respondent engaged in unlawful discrimination and paying Petitioner $50.00 in back pay. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of September, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BARBARA J. STAROS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of September, 2003.
